HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C Refuge Palm Desert Cultural Resources Report C
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Survey
(Available on City website)
Tel: 909 824 6400 Fax: 909 824 6405
April 21, 2022
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Refuge at Palm Desert Project; APNs 694-310-002, -003, and -006
City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract No. 3847
Dear Ms. Criste:
At your request, CRM TECH has completed a cultural resources study on approximately 106 acres
of undeveloped land in the northwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County,
California. The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-310-002,
-003, and -006, located on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Road and Monterey
Avenue, in the east half of Section 32, Township 4 South Range 6 East, San Bernardino Baseline
and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Cathedral City and Myoma,
California, 7.5’ quadrangles (Figures 1, 2).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the three
existing parcels for development of both private residences and rental properties. The City of Palm
Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the
necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial
adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in the project area.
Background
As you know, the current project area was covered by a standard Phase I cultural resources survey
that CRM TECH completed on a total of 132 acres in 2016 (Tang et al. 2016; Figure 3; see
Attachment A). The scope of that study included a historical/archaeological resources records
search, historical background research, Native American consultation, and an intensive-level field
survey. In 2020, the northernmost portion of the project area was again surveyed for cultural
resources as an update to the 2016 study using similar research procedures (Tang 2020; Figure 3;
Attachment B).
Neither of these previous surveys encountered any “historical resources” (Tang et al. 2016:15; Tang
2020:5). During the field survey in 2016, the remnants of three “jackrabbit homesteads” that were
built in the late 1950s and abandoned shortly afterwards, including a concrete slab foundation and
scattered building debris, were noted within the boundaries of that study, but none of these features
demonstrated any potential to be considered historically significant, and none of them were found
within the current project boundaries (Tang et al. 2016:13-15).
2
Figure 1. Location and configuration of the project area. (Based on USGS Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5’
quadrangles, 1978/1981 edition)
3
Figure 2. Recent satellite image of the project area. (Based on Google Earth imagery)
4
Figure 3. The current project area compared with areas surveyed in 2016 and 2020.
The present study was designed and implemented to update and reexamine the findings and
conclusions of the 2016 and 2020 studies. Research procedures completed during this study include
a review of data gathered during those studies and the results of more recent records searches on
nearby properties, a Sacred Lands Files search at the State of California Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), and a field inspection of the project area. A summary of the methods and
results of these procedures is presented below, along with the final conclusion of the study.
Updated Records Search Results
Due to continued delays resulting from facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new
records search was not obtained for this study from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System. Instead, the results of records searches for
recent studies on other properties nearby, such as a survey completed in 2021 on a property
approximately a half-mile to the north (Ballester and Gallardo 2021), were examined for pertinent
information. A half-mile radius was adopted for the scope of the review to ensure consistent
coverage. These data indicate that the 2016 and 2020 surveys discussed above remain the only
cultural resources studies covering the project area, and that no historical/archaeological resources
have been recorded within the project boundaries or anywhere within the half-mile radius.
Sacred Lands File Search
On February 23, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in the
Sacred Lands File pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the project
5
vicinity. In response, the NAHC states in a letter dated April 13 that the Sacred Lands File identified
no such resources in or near the project area but refers to local Native American groups for further
information (see Attachment C). The reply from the NAHC, including the referral list for local
Native American representatives, is attached to this report for reference by the City of Palm Desert
in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups, if necessary (see
Attachment C).
Current Condition of the Project Area
The field inspection of the project area was carried out on February 28, 2022, by CRM TECH
archaeologist Daniel Ballester, M.S., at a reconnaissance level by walking a series of parallel north-
south transects spaced 50 meters (approximately 150 feet) apart. Ground visibility was excellent
(90-100%) over the entire project area due to the relatively light and scattered vegetation growth
(Figure 4). As in the past surveys, no historical/archaeological resources were encountered in the
current project area during the field inspection. Recent disturbances were noted near the eastern
project boundary, apparently the result of residential development on the adjacent property, and a
block wall has been built along the boundary line. Off-road vehicle use and extensive pedestrian use
are also evident on the property.
Figure 4. Overview of the current condition of the project area. (Photograph taken on February 28, 2022; view to the
southwest)
6
Conclusion and Recommendations
In summary, the results of the previous surveys on the property and of research procedures
completed during this study have established that no “historical resources” are known to be present
within the project area. Therefore, CRM TECH reiterates the recommendations presented to the
City of Palm Desert at the conclusion of the 2016 and 2020 studies:
• The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical
resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding the findings of
this study or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Principal, CRM TECH
References Cited
Daniel Ballester, and Nina Gallardo
2021 Phase 1 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: The Crossings at Palm Desert
Project, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Tang, Bai “Tom”
2020 Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Palm Desert Apartments Project,
APN 694-310-006 and -007, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern
Information Center, University of California, Riverside. (See Attachment B)
Tang, Bai “Tom,” Terri Jacquemain, Daniel Ballester, and Nina Gallardo
2016 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -
002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, City of Palm Desert, Riverside
County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
(See Attachment A)
ATTACHMENT A
2016 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 694-300-001,
-002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007
City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared for:
John Snell
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
December 28, 2016
CRM TECH Contract No. 3147
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007,
City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian
Terri Jacquemain, Historian/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liaison
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: December 28, 2016
For Submittal to: Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
Prepared for: John Snell
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
Project Size: Approximately 132 acres
USGS Quadrangle: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles (Section 32, T4S R6E,
San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)
Keywords: Coachella Valley, western Colorado Desert; no “historical resources”/“tribal
cultural resources” under CEQA
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November and December 2016, at the request of Lewis Management Corp., CRM
TECH performed a cultural resources survey on approximately 132 acres of vacant
land in the northwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County,
California. The project area consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-300-001,
-002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, located on the south side
of Gerald Ford Drive and the west side of Portola Road, in the eastern half of Section
32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of
the property for residential development. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency
for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the
necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would
cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” or “tribal cultural
resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/
archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research,
contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field
survey of the entire project area. As a result of these research procedures, the
remnants of three late-1950s “jackrabbit homesteads” were noted in eastern portion of
the project area, but were found not to have the potential to be considered eligible for
the California Register of Historical Resources. No “historical resources” or “tribal
cultural resources” have been identified within or adjacent to the project area.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Palm Desert a
determination of No Impact regarding cultural resources. No further cultural
resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if
buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations
associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a
qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3
Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5
Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5
Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5
Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 6
RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7
Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 7
Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 8
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8
Historical Background Research..................................................................................................... 10
Native American Participation ........................................................................................................ 12
Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 13
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 15
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 18
APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ........................................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area .................................................. 3
Figure 4. Aerial image of the project area ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 ........................................................................ 11
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................. 11
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 11
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958 ........................................................................ 11
Figure 10. Building debris in the project area.................................................................................... 13
1
INTRODUCTION
In November and December 2016, at the request of Lewis Management Corp., CRM TECH
performed a cultural resources survey on approximately 132 acres of vacant land in the northwestern
portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The project area consists
of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006,
-007, located on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive and the west side of Portola Road, in the eastern
half of Section 32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Fig. 2).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property
for residential development. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required
the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et
seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical
resources,” or “tribal cultural resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the
project area.
In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological
resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American
representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area. The
following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study.
Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their
qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979])
2
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1978; 1981])
3
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Palm Desert lies in the heart of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending
desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic
setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert
country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120
degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is
less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
The 133-acre project area comprises an irregularly-shaped tract of open desert land located
approximately a half-mile south of Interstate Highway 10, in an area on the northern edge of the City
that is undergoing accelerated residential and commercial development in recent years (Figs. 3, 4). It
is bounded by Gerald Ford Drive on the north and Portola Road on the east, and is surrounded mostly
by existing residential neighborhoods on the north, east, and south, with a golf course to the west and
a Riverside County Sheriff’s station near the northwest corner (Fig. 4).
The terrain is level in the northern and eastern portions of the project area, but features sand dunes
near the center of the property and along the western boundary. Elevations in the project area range
between 260 feet and 310 feet above mean sea level, inclining gently to the west. Soils consist of
fine- to medium-grained sands, with imported gravel scattered along the western and eastern
boundaries, at locations near past construction activities outside the project area. Vegetation consists
of a sparse growth of creosote bushes, brittlebrush, wild mustard, and other small desert shrubs and
grasses (Fig. 3). Scattered tamarisk trees, apparently the remnants of former windbreaks, are also
observed on the property.
Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area, view to the south. (Photograph taken on November
8, 2016)
4
Figure 4. Aerial image of the project area. (Based on Google Earth 2016)
5
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led
researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural
sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many
archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian
(ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who
relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the
region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes”
(ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools,
“cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).
The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a
decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied
more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time
period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by
continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal
food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for
food processing were prominent during this time period. The most recent period in Schaefer’s
scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and
saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern. Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were
associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal
“wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66). It was during this period that brown and
buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.
The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and
resource procurement; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer
(1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and
mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the
shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have
recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types,
ornaments, and cremations.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors
noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-
19th century. The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three
groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm
Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla
Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on
Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following
ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.
6
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead,
membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main
divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans
from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called
their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources.
They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
The Cahuilla people were primarily hunters and gatherers who exploited nearly all of the resources
available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions
of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the
nearby mountains. When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the
resources presented by the body of fresh water. Once the lake had desiccated, they utilized the
available terrestrial resources. They also migrated to the higher elevations of the nearby mountains
to take advantage of the resources and cooler temperatures available in that environment.
The Cahuilla collected seeds, roots, fruits, berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and
screw beans. Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats
and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowls. The Cahuilla hunted with
throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002).
Common tools and utensils included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire
drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from
locally available material as well as exotic material procured through trade or travel. They also used
wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting,
parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving
food and drink (ibid.).
Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from
3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was
decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had
no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated
with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua
Caliente, Morongo, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted
European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in
search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians
ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who
traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail,
an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and
known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella
Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111.
During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal
southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in
1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
7
Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad
stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was
opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws
(Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in
the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian
wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and
by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the
region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new
industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread
throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.
The modern community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable
water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail that has since vanished into obscurity (Johnston
1987:120). The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil
Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town (Gunther
1984:373-374). Following the footsteps of Palm Springs and other “cove communities” along
Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the ranks of winter
resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era, characterized by country clubs and golf
courses. The Palm Desert post office was established in 1947, and in 1973, after four unsuccessful
attempts, the community was officially incorporated as the 17th city in Riverside County (ibid.:374).
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
On November 7, 2016, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo completed the records search at the
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside, which is the State of
California’s official repository of cultural resources records for the County of Riverside. During the
records search, Gallardo examined maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified
cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one-mile radius of the project area.
Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical
Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in
the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the
California Historical Resources Inventory.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH historians Bai “Tom”
Tang and Terri Jacquemain on the basis of the following sources:
• Published literature in local and regional history;
• Archival records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), available at the BLM website;
• Historic maps of the project vicinity, including U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat
maps dated 1856 and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1981,
available at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California
Desert District of the BLM, located in Moreno Valley;
8
• Aerial photographs taken in 1972-2016, available at the NETR Online website and through the
Google Earth software;
• Online genealogical databases such as census records, marriage index, death index, military
enlistment records, and newspaper clippings, available at ancestry.com, genealogybank.com, and
myheritage.com.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On November 4, 2016, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California’s Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s sacred lands file.
On the same day, CRM TECH notified the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the nearby Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited tribal
participation. Following the NAHC’s recommendations and previously established consultation
protocol, on November 16 CRM TECH further contacted 34 representatives of local tribes in writing
for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources that may be present in
and near the project area. The correspondence between CRM TECH and the Native American
representatives is attached to this report in Appendix 2.
FIELD SURVEY
On November 8, 2016, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and project archaeologists Sal
Boites and Amanda Lloyd carried out the field survey of the project area. The survey was completed
on foot by walking a series of parallel north-south and east-west transects spaced 15 meters
(approximately 50 feet) apart. In addition, the project area was also inspected from the air with the
help of a DJI Phantom 3 Professional drone. Using these methods, the ground surface in the entire
project area was systematically examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the
prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility was excellent (90 to 100
percent) despite the sparse vegetation growth on the property.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this
study and no historical/archaeological resources were previously recorded within the project
boundary. Outside of the project area but within a one-mile radius, EIC records show a total of 25
previous studies on various tracts of land and linear features (Fig. 5), including a 2007 survey on the
site of the sheriff’s station adjacent to the project boundary (Sanka 2007). That survey did not find
any cultural resources, and further determined the parcel’s sensitivity for such resources to be low
(ibid.:1).
In all, roughly 30% of the land within the scope of the records search has been surveyed, which
resulted in the identification of four historical/archaeological sites and four isolates—i.e., localities
with fewer than three artifacts—within the one-mile radius (see Table 1). One of the sites and three
of the isolates were of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—origin. Closest to the project area among
9
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of
known historical/archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure.
10
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search
Site No. Recorded by/Date Description
33-003439 Various 1988-1999 Remains of Thousand Palms Dry Camp
33-005080 Hogan and Moffitt 1993 Ceramic scatter
33-009498 Various 1999-2005 Southern Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad
33-012698 Doan and Hogan 1993 Isolate: ceramic sherd and mano fragment
33-015431 Cooley 2006 Isolate: granitic mano
33-015432 Eckhardt 2006 Isolate: blue glass insulator
33-024161 Wilson 2015 Isolate: granitic metate
33-024269 Goodwin 2015 Refuse scatter
them was Site 33-005080, a ceramic scatter located 0.7 mile to the southeast. The isolates were
described as a ceramic sherd and several groundstone artifacts.
The other recorded sites and isolate identified through the records search dated to the historic period
and included the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, the remains of the Thousand Palms
Dry Camp on the railroad, a refuse scatter, and a blue glass insulator. None of these sites or isolates
was found in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further
consideration during this study.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted for this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development
activities within the project area prior to the late 1950s. In 1855-1856, when the U.S. government
conducted the earliest systematic land surveys in the Coachella Valley, no man-made features of any
kind were observed in or near the project area (Fig. 6). During the early 20th century, the Southern
Pacific Railroad, constructed in 1876-1877 about a half-mile away, remained the nearest man-made
feature to the project location (Figs. 7, 8).
By 1956-1958, three buildings had appeared in the eastern portion of the project area, evidently part
of a wave of small tract claims on public land in the easternmost 160 acres of Section 32 (BLM n.d.;
Fig. 9). Around that time, similar claims were made in large numbers in many areas of the
Coachella Valley following post-WWII streamlining of the Small Tract Act of 1938, whereby the
U.S. government granted to private owners five-acre homesteads in the southern California desert
with the caveat that construction must occur within two years for a claim to remain valid. The
resulting “jackrabbit homesteads,” as they came to be known, were often hastily constructed using
subpar materials and building practices, and were often abandoned soon afterwards or fell victim to
the harsh climate (Bellisi n.d.; Verdin 2000).
The three buildings in the project area were located on small tract claims filed by Leslie Roy
Clarence, Clara Schoenberg, and Gerald Sidney Shapiro and approved by the U.S. government
between 1957 and 1959 (BLM n.d.). Clarence, born in 1912 or 1913 in Kansas or Nebraska,
depending on the source, was evidently living in San Bernardino with his wife and four children in
1940 and working as a timekeeper (Ancestry.com n.d.; Myheritage.com n.d.). He passed away in
that city in 1960 (ibid.). Shapiro, then a resident in the Reseda area of Los Angeles, was born in
1925 in New York and passed away in Los Angeles in 1974 (Van Nuys News 1959; Ancestry.com
n.d.). He may h ave enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1943 (Ancestry.com n.d.). Due to the
11
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856.
(Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b)
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source:
USGS 1904)
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source:
USGS 1941)
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958.
(Source: USGS 1958)
12
number of people with the same name in southern California at the time, the identity of Clara
Schoenberg is unclear (ibid.). No other information was found on any of the three claimants.
In 1972, the three buildings remained extant but had clearly been abandoned, as all of them stood
isolated on the desert landscape and partially buried by shifting sands, and none of them was
accompanied by roads or any other signs of human activities, much like the other “jackrabbit
homesteads” in the surrounding area (NETR Online 1972). By 1996, when the first residential
development on adjacent properties began to the south, the earlier buildings in and around the
project area had been removed (NETR Online 1996). Since then, the entire project area has
remained undeveloped to the present time, in contrast to the residential neighborhoods and the golf
course that came into being on adjacent land during that period (NETR Online 1996-2012; Google
Earth 1996-2016).
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC stated that the sacred lands record search identified
no Native American cultural resources within the project area but recommended that local Native
American groups be contacted for further information. For that purpose, the NAHC provided a list
of potential contacts in the region (see App. 2). Upon receiving the NAHC’s reply, CRM TECH
sent written requests for comments to all 22 individuals on the referral list and the organizations they
represent (see App. 2). In addition, as recommended by the appropriate tribal government staff, the
following designated spokespersons for the tribes were also contacted:
• David L. Saldivar, Tribal Government Affairs Manager, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Andreas Heredia, Cultural Director, Cahuilla Band of Indians;
• Raymond Huaute, Cultural Resource Specialist, Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
• Gabriella Rubalcava, Environmental Director, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians;
• Javaugh Miller, Tribal Administrator, La Posta Band of Diegueño Mission Indians;
• John Perada, Environmental Director, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians;
• John Gomez, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• John Flores, Environmental Coordinator, San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians;
• Lisa Haws, Cultural Resource Manager, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation;
• Julie Hagen, Environmental Coordinator, Viejas Band of Mission Indians;
• Desiderio “Desi” Vela, Environmental Program Manager, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians.
As of this time, three tribal representatives have responded in writing (see App. 2). Among them,
Judy Stapp of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians found the project location to be within the
tribe’s traditional use area, but stated that the tribe had no specific information on any sites of Native
American cultural value in the vicinity. Steven Estrada, Chairman of the Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians, stated that he had no concerns and deferred further consultation to the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
Katie Croft, Archaeologist with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office, also
identified the project location as a part of her tribe’s traditional use area. She requested copies of all
13
cultural resources documentation generated in connection to the proposed project, including this
report, for tribal review. In addition, she requested Native American monitoring during ground
disturbances in the project area to ensure that the proper procedures be observed should any buried
cultural remains be discovered.
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey encountered remnants of the three buildings noted in the eastern portion of the
project area in the 1950s-1970s, including a 30x20-foot concrete slab foundation with protruding
metal pipes (Fig. 10) and scattered building debris such as roof shingles, broken lumber, rusted nails,
and pieces of metal flashing. No other artifacts were found at these locations in association with the
structural remains. Elsewhere in the project area, it was noted that the ground surface on the edges
of the property had been disturbed in the past by the adjacent development, especially along
southern, eastern, and northern boundaries. In the western portion of the project area, a small
amount of modern refuse was observed on the surface, consisting mainly of building debris and
household discards, but none of the items was of any historical/archaeological interest.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area,
and to assist the City of Palm Desert in determining whether such resources meet the official
definition of “historical resources,” or “tribal cultural resources,” as provided in the California
Figure 10. Building debris from a “jackrabbit homestead” formerly located in the project area. (Photograph taken
November 8, 2016)
14
Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’
includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is
historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California.”
More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such
resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically
significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for
the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall
be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A
resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(PRC §5024.1(c))
For “tribal cultural resources,” PRC §21074, enacted and codified as part of a 2014 amendment to
CEQA through Assembly Bill 52, provides the statutory definition as follows:
“Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the
purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
In summary of the research results presented above, the only cultural remains from the prehistoric or
historic period observed within or adjacent to the project area were the remnants of three “jackrabbit
homesteads” that were built in the late 1950s and abandoned shortly afterwards, including a concrete
slab foundation and scattered building debris. Resulting from the many small tract claims filed on
desert land in the post-WWII era, such structural remains are a common occurrence in the Coachella
Valley. Dating only to the late historic period, with no associated artifact deposits, and with little
15
historic fabric surviving to relate to their period of origin, these minor structural remains
demonstrate little potential for historic significance. Furthermore, a survey of historical records on
the persons presumed to be responsible for their presence in the project area identified no figures of
known significance.
Based on these considerations, the present study concludes that the structural remains found in the
project area have no potential to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, and do not warrant formal recordation into the California Historical Resources
Inventory. As such, they do not qualify as “historical resources” or “tribal cultural resources” as
defined above. Since no other cultural remains from the prehistoric or historic period were
encountered, this study further concludes that no “historical resources” or “tribal cultural resources”
exist within or adjacent to the project area.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
“historical resource” or a “tribal cultural resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on
the environment (PRC §21084.1-2). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q),
“means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical
resource would be impaired.”
As stated above, the remnants of three late-1950s “jackrabbit homesteads” were noted in eastern
portion of the project area, but were found not to have the potential to be considered eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, no “historical resources” or “tribal cultural
resources,” as defined by CEQA, are known to be present within or adjacent to the project area.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Palm
Desert:
• The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical
resources” or “tribal cultural resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
REFERENCES
Ancestry.com
n.d. Genealogical records on Leslie Roy Clarence, Clara Schoenberg, and Gerald Sidney
Shapiro. http://www.ancestry.com/.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
16
Bellisi, Lou
n.d. BLM and the Small Tract Act in the Southern California Desert: A Brief History.
http://www.publicland.org/35_archives/documents/doc_1306_bellesi.html.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior)
n.d. Online database of U.S. land patents. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov.
CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and
Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed
in 1855-1856.
1856b Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed
in 1855-1856.
Google Earth
1996-2016 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity. Available through the Google Earth
software.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J. D.
Gunther, Riverside.
Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
Myheritage.com
n.d. Leslie Roy Clarence, 1913-1960. https://www.myheritage.com/names/leslie_clarence.
NETR Online
1972-1996 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity. http://www.historicaerials.com.
Robinson, W. W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave
Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
Sanka, Jennifer M.
2007 Phase I Culturral Resources Assessment: Palm Desert Sheriff Station, Project
FM08250003764, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. Report on file (RI-7440), Eastern
Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches
and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date
Gardens, Indio.
17
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning,
California, 1972.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901.
1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1958 Map: Thousand Palms, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1951-1956,
field-checked in 1958.
1978 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected
in 1978.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised.
1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978.
Van Nuys News, The
1959 Pair Recite Nuptial Vows. December 17:110. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/
22790141/.
Verdin, Tom
2000 Homesteader Legacy Leaves Desert Littered with Abandoned Shacks. The Los Angeles
Times November 5.
18
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the
Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside.
1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside.
1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside.
1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Honors and Awards
1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside.
1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School.
1980, 1981 President’s Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory
System (With Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California
State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit,
Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
19
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA*
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.
1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level.
UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood,
Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the
Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer.
1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside.
1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands.
1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside
1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.
1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern
California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange
Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural
Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources
management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
* Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California
Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
20
PROJECT HISTORIAN/REPORT WRITER
Terri Jacquemain, M.A.
Education
2004 M.A., Public History and Historic Resource Management, University of California,
Riverside.
• M.A. thesis: Managing Cultural Outreach, Public Affairs and Tribal Policies of
the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Indio, California; internship served as
interim Public Information Officer, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, June-
October, 2002.
2002 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
2001 Archaeological Field School, University of California, Riverside.
1991 A.A., Riverside Community College, Norco Campus.
Professional Experience
2003- Historian/Architectural Historian/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/ Colton,
California.
• Author/co-author of legally defensible cultural resources reports for CEQA and
NHPA Section 106;
• Historic context development, historical/archival research, oral historical
interviews, consultation with local communities and historical organizations;
• Historic building surveys and recordation, research in architectural history;
architectural description
2002-2003 Teaching Assistant, Religious Studies Department, University of California,
Riverside.
2002 Interim Public Information Officer, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
2000 Administrative Assistant, Native American Student Programs, University of
California, Riverside.
1997-2000 Reporter, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, California.
1991-1997 Reporter, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California.
Membership
California Preservation Foundation
21
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University,
San Bernardino.
2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base
Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside,
California.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICAN LIAISON
Nina Gallardo, B.A.
Education
2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Honors and Awards
2000-2002 Dean’s Honors List, University of California, Riverside.
22
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Salvadore Boites, M.A.
Education
2013 M.A., Applied Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach.
2003 B.A., Anthropology/Sociology, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2003- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2010-2011 Adjunct Instructor, Anthropology etc., Everest College, Anaheim, California.
2001-2002 Teaching Assistant, Moreno Elementary School, Moreno Valley, California.
1999-2003 Research Assistant, Anthropology Department, University of California, Riverside.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Amanda Lloyd, B.A.
Education
2013 Certificate of Completion, Maritime Archaeology, Sanisera Field School, Port Sanitja
Survey, Menorca, Spain.
2010 B.A., Anthropology (minor in Archaeology), summa cum laude, Biola University, La
Mirada, California.
2009 Certificate of Completion, Field Archaeology, Balkan Heritage Field School, Heraclea
Lyncestis Excavation, Bitola, Macedonia.
Professional Experience
2016- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2012- Paleontological/Cultural Resource Monitor and Surveyor, ECORP Consulting, Inc.,
Stantec Consulting Services, and Cogstone Resource Management .
2009-2010 Teaching Assistant (lab supervisor and co-lecturer), Physical Anthropology and Lab
a nd Field Methods in Archeology, Biola University, La Mirada, California.
2008- Site and lab supervisor for mammoth excavation site Biola 2001-1, La Mirada,
California
23
APPENDIX 2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES*
* A total of 34 local Native American representatives were contacted; a sample letter is included in this report.
SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916)373-3710
(916)373-5471 Fax
nahc@pacbell.net
Project: Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 (CRM
TECH Contract No. 3147)
County: Riverside
USGS Quadrangle Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
Township 4 South Range 6 East SB BM; Section(s) 32
Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH
Contact Person: Nina Gallardo
Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324
Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405
Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Project Description: The primary component of the project is to construct a residential community
on 130 acres of land (APNs 694-300-001 and -014 and 694-310-002, -003, and -006) located
southwest of the corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive in the City of Palm Desert,
Riverside County, California.
November 4, 2016
From: Nina Gallardo <ngallardo@crmtech.us>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Agua Caliente Trail Historic Preservation Office (ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net);
Katherine Eskew (TRBL) (kcroft@aguacaliente.net); vharvey@aguacaliente. net
(vharvey@aguacaliente.net)
Subject: Cultural Resources Study & Participation in Fieldwork for the Lewis Homes Project;
APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 in the City of Palm Desert,
Riverside County, California (CRM TECH No. 3147)
Hello,
I’m emailing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting a cultural resources study for the
Lewis Homes Project on APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 in the City of Palm
Desert, Riverside County, California (CRM TECH No. 3147). I’m contacting you to see if the tribe
would like to participate in the field survey for the project and we will contact the tribe again when
we have a specific time and date for the fieldwork. CRM TECH would appreciate any information
regarding the project area. We will be sending an NA scoping letter with additional information in a
few weeks. I’m attaching the proposed project area map and other information.
Thank you for your time and input on this project.
Nina Gallardo
(909) 824-6400 (phone)
(909) 824-6405 (fax)
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Ste. A/B
Colton, CA 92324
ATE OF CAUFORMA dm mtl a Jr.-Goyarnor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1560 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373.3710
(916) 373.5471 FAX
lio
Novemberp, 2016
Nina Gailardo
CRM Tech
Sent by E-mail: ngallardo@crmtech.us
RE: Proposed Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 (CRM Tech Contract
No. 3147) Project, City of Palm Desert; Cathedral City and Myoma USGS Quadrangles, Riverside County,
California
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the
above referenced counties. Please note that the intent of the reference codes below is to avoid or mitigate impacts
to tribal cultural resources, as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects under AB-52.
As of July 1, 2015, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 require public agencies to consult
with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the
purpose mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency
to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a
tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have
requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a
brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact Information, and a
notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this
section. (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d))
The law does not preclude agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally
affiliated with their jurisdictions. The NAHC believes that in fact that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes
are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d), formal notification must include a brief description
of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California
Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation, The NAHC believes that agencies should also include
with their notification letters information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on
the APE, such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
■ A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the
APE;
■ Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the
Information Center as part of the records search response;
■ If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
■ Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural
resources are located in the potential APE; and
■ If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded
cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measurers.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure
in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.
3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage
Commission. A search of the SFL was completed for the project with negative results.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a
negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only
source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the case that they do,
having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your
assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current information.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
yl otton, M.A., PhD.
sociate Governmental Program Analyst
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
November 10, 2016
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Viejas Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation
Robert Pinto Sr., Chairperson Robert J. Welch, Jr., Chairperson
4054 Willows Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 1 Viejas Grade Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine . CA 9t901 Alpine I CA 91901
(619) 445-6315
(619) 445-9126 Fax
La Posta Band of Diegueho Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Boulevard . CA 91905
LP13boots@aol.com
(619) 478-2113
(619) 478-2125 Fax
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
Leroy J. Elliott, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Boulevard , CA 91905
(619) 766-4930
(619) 766-4957 Fax
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson
P.O. Box 365 Diegueno
Valley Center , CA 92082
alien[@sanpasqualtribe.org
(760) 749-3200
(760) 749-3876 Fax
jhagen @viejas-nsn. gov
(619) 445-3810
(619) 445-5337 Fax
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla
Indio , CA 92203
(760) 342-2593
(760) 347-7880 Fax
Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190 Church Road, Suite 1 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Campo , CA 91906
rgoff @ cam po-nsn.gov
(619) 478-9046
(619) 478-5818 Fax
Jamul Indian Village of California
Erica Pinto, Chairperson
P.O. Box 612 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Jamul , CA 91935
(619) 669-4785
(619) 669-4817
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson Shane Chapparosa, Chairman
1 Kwaaypaay Court Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla
El Cajon . CA 92019 Warner Springs , CA 92086
ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov Chapparosa@msn.com
(619) 445-2613 (760) 782-0711
(619) 445-1927 Fax
(760) 782-0712 Fax
This list is current only as of the date of this document and to based on the Information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person or agency of statutory responsibility as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694
300.001, -014, 694.310-002, -003, and -006 Project; City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
November 10, 2016
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Virgil Oyos, Chairperson
P.O Box 270 Diegueno
Santa Ysabel , CA 92070
mesagrandeband gmsn.com
(760) 782-3818
(760) 782-9092 Fax
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Daniel Salgado, Chairman
P.O. Box 391670
Anza , CA 92539
admin @ ramonatribe.com
(951)763-4105
(951) 763-4325 Fax
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Rroad Cahuilla
Banning , CA 92220 Serrano
(951)849-8807
(951) 755-5200
(951)922-8146 Fax
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Patricia Garcia -Plotkin, Director, THPO
Cahuilla 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla
Palm Springs , CA 92264
AC BCI-TH PO @aguacaiiente. net
(760) 699-6907
(760) 567-3761 Cell
(760) 699-6924 Fax
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Steven Estrada, Chairman
P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla
Anza , CA 92539
(951) 659-2700
(951)659-2228 Fax
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846 Cahuilla
Coachella CA 92236
(760) 398-4722
(760) 369-7161 Fax
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla
Palm Springs , CA 92264
(760) 699-6800
(760) 699-6919 Fax
Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians
Luther Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U. S. Highway 371 Cahuilla
Anza , CA 92539
ChairmanQcahuilla.net
(951)763-5549
(951)763-2808
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487 Luiseno
San Jacinto CA 92581 Cahuilla
jontiveros(Psoboba-nsn.gov
(951) 663-5279
(951) 654-5544, ext 4137
(951) 654-4198 Fax
lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Virgil Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 130 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Santa Ysabel , CA 92070
(760) 765-0845
(760)765-0320 Fax
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not rolieve any person or agency of statutory responsibility as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Cade.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694
-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 Project; City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
November 10, 2016
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160 Cahuilla
Thermal , CA 92274
mmirelezQtmdci.org
(760) 399-0022, Ext. 1213
(760) 397-8146 Fax
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine , CA 91901
michaelg @ leaning rock. net
(619) 445-6315
(619) 445-9126 Fax
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person or agency of statutory responsibility as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21000.3.1
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694
-300.001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 Project; City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
November 16, 2016
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
RE: Lewis Homes Project
APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006
130 Acres in the City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract #3147
Dear Ms. Garcia-Plotkin:
I am writing to bring your attention to an ongoing CEQA-compliance study for the proposed project
referenced above. The project entails the construction of a residential community on approximately
130 acres of undeveloped land located southwest of the corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford
Drive. The accompanying map, based on the USGS Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5'
quadrangles, depicts the location of the project area in Section 32, T4S R6E, SBBM.
According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), there are no known historical/
archaeological sites within the boundaries of the project area. Outside the project boundaries but
within a one-mile radius, EIC records show that four historical/archaeological sites and four isolates
—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—were previously recorded. One of these known sites
and three of the isolates were of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—origin. Closest to the project area
among them was Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080), a ceramic scatter located 0.7 mile southeast of the
project area. The three isolates were described as a ceramic sherd, a mano fragment, a bifacial
mano, and a granitic metate. The other three sites and one isolate dated to the historic period and
included the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, a refuse scatter, the remains of the
Thousand Palms Dry Camp, and a single blue glass insulator.
During an intensive-level field survey conducted on November 8, 2016, no potential historical/
archaeological resources were encountered within or adjacent to the project area. The project area
has been disturbed in the past during adjacent residential construction along the southern, eastern,
and northern boundaries and a Riverside County sheriff’s station built to the west.
In a letter dated November 10, 2016, the Native American Heritage Commission reports that the
sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area,
but recommends that local Native American groups be contacted for further information (see
attached). Therefore, as part of the cultural resources study for this project, I am writing to request
your input on potential Native American cultural resources in or near the project area.
Please respond at your earliest convenience if you have any specific knowledge of sacred/religious
sites or other sites of Native American traditional cultural value in or near the project area to
consider as part of the cultural resources investigation. Any information or concerns may be
forwarded to CRM TECH by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or standard mail. Requests for
documentation or information we cannot provide will be forwarded to our client and/or the lead
agency, namely the City of Palm Desert.
We would also like to clarify that CRM TECH, as the cultural resources consultant for the project, is
not the appropriate entity to initiate government-to-government consultations or the AB 52-
compliance process. Nevertheless, pursuant to the Public Resources Code, “[a] project with an
effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a
project that may have a significant effect on the environment,” and as such, tribal consultation is an
avenue pursued in cultural resources investigations in compliance CEQA guidelines. We thank you
for your time and effort in addressing this important matter.
Nina Gallardo
Project Archaeologist/Native American liaison
CRM TECH
Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Encl.: NAHC response letter and project location map
From: Steven Estrada <SEstrada@santarosacahuilla-nsn.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:44 AM
To: Nina Gallardo
Cc: Pattie Tuck
Subject: Re: NA Scoping Letter for the Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-
002, -003, and -006; City of Palm Desert, Riverside County (CRM TECH # 3147)
Good morning Nina,
Thank you for your consultation efforts. At this time, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians does
not have any specific concerns regarding cultural resources at the project area described. We defer
further consultation to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
Thank you,
Steven Estrada
November 21, 2016
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Re.: Lewis Homes Project
APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006
130 Acres in the City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract #3147
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
Thank you for contacting the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians concerning cultural resource
information relative to the above referenced project.
The project is located outside of the Tribe's current reservation boundaries but within an area that
may be considered a traditional use area. The Tribe has no specific archival information on the site
indicating that it may be a sacred/religious site or other site of Native American traditional cultural
value within the project area. The Cabazon Band suggests, however, there be an archaeologist on
site during all ground disturbing activities to monitor for the discovery of unknown cultural
resources.
We look forward to continued collaboration in the preservation of cultural resources or areas of
traditional cultural importance.
Bestregards,
Judy Stapp
Director of Cultural Affairs
NI)v
Mal IIi,"n."�n."'&1311II"rn�n.ME
84-245 INDIO SPRINGS PARKWAY • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92203-3499 • 760.342.2593 • FAX: 760.347.7880
Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the
Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Lewis Homes project. The project area is not
located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area (TUA). For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the folllowing:
[VIA EMAIL TO:ngallardo@crmtech.us]
CRM TECH
Ms. Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
December 07, 2016
Re: Lewis Homes
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions
or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6829. You may also email me at
acbci-thpo@aguacaliente.net.
Cordially,
Katie Croft
Archaeologist
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
03-026-2016-004
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated
in connection with this project.
*The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s)
during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and
surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request
that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified
Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate
and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic
Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.
ATTACHMENT B
2020 UPDATE TO THE SURVEY
Tel: 909 824 6400 Fax: 909 824 6405
December 16, 2020
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Palm Desert Apartments Project; APN 694-310-006 and -007
City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract No. 3686
Dear Ms. Criste:
At your request, CRM TECH has completed a cultural resources study on approximately 13 acres of
vacant land in the northwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
The subject property of the study measures generally 900 feet in length and 630 feet in width,
consisting of portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-310-006 and -007. It is located on the
south side of Gerald Ford Drive near its intersection with Rembrandt Parkway, in the northeast
quarter of Section 32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 1, 2).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed Palm Desert Apartments
Project, which entails primarily the construction of approximately 270 residential units in 14
buildings, along with associated administrative and recreational facilities, parking lots, landscaping,
and infrastructure improvements. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project,
required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine
whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as
defined by CEQA, that may exist in the project area.
Background
As you know, the current 13-acre project area was covered entirely by a standard Phase I cultural
resources survey that CRM TECH completed in 2016 for a residential development project on a total
of 132 acres (Tang et al. 2016; see Attachment A; Figs. 1, 2). The scope of that study included a
historical/ archaeological resources records search, historical background research, Native American
consultation, and an intensive-level field survey. Throughout the course of these research
procedures, no “historical resources” were identified as a result of the study (ibid.:15). During the
field survey, the remnants of three “jackrabbit homesteads” that were built in the late 1950s and
abandoned shortly afterwards, including a concrete slab foundation and scattered building debris,
were encountered within the boundaries of that study, but none of these features demonstrated any
potential to be considered historically significant, and none of them was found within the current
project area (ibid.:13-15).
2
Figure 1. Current project area in relation to the area covered by the 2016 study. (Based on USGS Cathedral City and
Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles, 1978/1981 editions)
3
Figure 2. Aerial view of the project area.
4
The present study was designed and implemented to update and reexamine the findings and
conclusions of the 2016 study in relation to the current project area. Research procedures completed
during this study include a review of data gathered during the 2016 study, a Sacred Lands Files
search at the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field
inspection of the project area. A summary of the methods and results of these procedures is
presented below, along with the final conclusion of the study.
Previous Cultural Resources Studies in the Project Vicinity
Due to delays caused by facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, an updated records search
could not be obtained in time for this study from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System. Instead, the results of the 2016 records search
were consulted for pertinent information. Records obtained from the EIC at that time indicate that
22 cultural resources studies had been completed within a one-mile radius of the current project area
prior to 2016, including a 2007 survey on the adjacent property to the west for the Riverside County
Sheriff’s station at that location today, but none of those studies covered any portion of the project
area itself.
The records further indicate that six cultural resources were previously identified within the one-mile
radius, including three historical/archaeological sites and three isolates (i.e., localities with fewer
than three artifacts), as listed below in Table 1. Two of the isolates were prehistoric (i.e., Native
American) in origin, each consisting of a single groundstone artifact, and both of them were found
more than a half-mile from the project location. The third isolate dated to the historic period, as did
all three of the sites. Other than the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, the historic-
period resources consisted predominantly of scattered refuse items, including those found at the site
of the Thousand Palms Dry Camp on the railroad. None of these six cultural resources was located
in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration
during this study.
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search
Resource No. Recorded by/Date Description
33-003439 Various 1988-1999 Remains of Thousand Palms Dry Camp
33-009498 Various 1999-2005 Southern Pacific Railroad
33-015431 Cooley 2006 Isolate: granitic mano
33-015432 Eckhardt 2006 Isolate: blue glass insulator
33-024161 Wilson 2015 Isolate: granitic metate
33-024269 Goodwin 2015 Refuse scatter
Land Use History of the Project Area
Historical maps and aerial photographs consulted for this study show no evidence of any settlement
or development activities within or adjacent to the project boundaries throughout the 1855-1972 era
(GLO 1856; USGS 1904; 1941; 1958a; 1958b; NETR Online 1972). As late as 1972, a largely
undisturbed desert landscape prevailed in and near the project area (NETR Online 1972). The first
man-made feature in the immediate vicinity of the project area, present-day Gerald Ford Drive, came
into being sometime between 1972 and 1996 (NETR Online 1996).
5
Development in the surrounding area began in earnest around the turn of the century, with the
Shadow Ridge Golf Club to the west and the residential tract to the east present by 2002 and the
neighborhood across Gerald Ford Drive developed gradually between 2006 and 2016 (NETR Online
1996-2016; Google Earth 1996-2016). The nearest development to the project location, the sheriff’s
station on the adjacent property, occurred in 2009-2011 (Google Earth 2009-2011). In the
meantime, the project area has exhibited evidence of some disturbance since the beginning of the
current century, especially on the western edge during the construction of the sheriff’s station, but
has remained undeveloped to the present time (Google Earth 2005-2019).
Sacred Lands File Search
On November 24, 2020, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in
the Sacred Lands File pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the project
vicinity. In response, the NAHC reported in a letter dated December 1, 2020, that the Sacred Lands
File identified no Native American cultural resources in or near the project area. Noting that the
absence of specific site information would not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources,
however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further
information and provided a referral list of potential contacts. The NAHC’s reply is attached to this
report in Attachment B for reference by the City of Palm Desert in future government-to-government
consultations with the pertinent tribal groups.
Current Condition of the Project Area
The field inspection of the project area was carried out on December 1, 2020, by CRM TECH field
director Daniel Ballester, M.S. The survey was completed at a reconnaissance level by walking a
series of parallel north-south transects spaced 30 meters (approximately 90 feet) apart. Ground
visibility was excellent (90-100%) over the entire project area despite the scattered vegetation
growth (Fig. 3). As in 2016, no historical/archaeological resources were encountered in the current
project area during the field inspection. Evidence of previous ground disturbances was observed
along the western project boundary as well as the northern boundary, where underground utility lines
have been installed along the south side of Gerald Ford Drive.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In summary, the results of the 2016 study and of research procedures completed during this study
have established that no “historical resources” are known to be present within the project area.
Accordingly, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Palm Desert:
• The proposed Palm Desert Apartments Project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any
known historical resources.
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
6
Figure 3. Overview of the current condition of the project area. (Photograph taken on December 1, 2020; view to the
northwest)
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions or need additional
information, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Principal, CRM TECH
References Cited
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1856 Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.
Google Earth
1996-2019 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1996, 2002, 2004-2006, 2009,
2011-2013, and 2015-2019. Available through the Google Earth software.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online
1972-2016 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1972, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009,
2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. http://www.historicaerials.com.
7
Tang, Bai “Tom,” Terri Jacquemain, Daniel Ballester, and Laura Shaker
2016 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-300-001,
-002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, City of Palm Desert, Riverside
County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
(See Attachment A)
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901.
1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1958a Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956.
1958b Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956, field-checked in
1958.
ATTACHMENT C
NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS FILE
SEARCH RESULT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
April 13, 2022
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Via Email to: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Re: Proposed Refuge at Palm Desert Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The
results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not
indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural
resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources
in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential
adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated;
if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By
contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to
consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of
notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to
ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify
me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email
address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
hhaines@augustinetribe.com
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
Chairman@cahuilla.net
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
scottmanfred@yahoo.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Refuge at Palm Desert
Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
001908
04/13/2022 01:31 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
4/13/2022
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
admin@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Cultural Committee,
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 397 - 0300
Fax: (760) 397-8146
Cultural-
Committee@torresmartinez-
nsn.gov
Cahuilla
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Refuge at Palm Desert
Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
001908
04/13/2022 01:31 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
4/13/2022